I don't know what you talk about, if you give some links, maybe it would help. You are free to believe whatever you will, and these "god playing dice" arguments I don't even want to discuss, I'm curious just about the seriousness of this light "tests" you claim, given that the speed of light in vacuum is by definition now fixed -- it is the basis "meter" for the other things to measure. Thanks.
The paper of the guy who can't even publish it on arxiv because he's banned there (it seems that's why it's on vixra instead)? And not because of what he writes but because it is below the necessary scientific literacy level. Arxiv's standards aren't particularly high. Is there any physicist in the world taking his papers seriously?
"I'm serious --- the writing appears to be that of a very intelligent schizophrenic who was trained in physics. It alternates between true statements and nonsense like rap rhymes. A key symptom is the various forms of "holistic fields" or what not that connect to DNA and brains --- this is part of the schizophrenics search for the origin of his internally-created hallucinations and delusions and feeling of "understanding the Universe"."
Regarding the paper you quote: it is... weird... and had he really found anything that would disprove the Michelson-Morley results (what he tries to claim between the lines) he'd already be famous and with his Nobel prize or just wait to get it.
You know "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"? It appears he doesn't even know (or doesn't want to know) what the necessary evidence for his claims would be.
Is your name by any chance Stoyan Sargoytchev (or B.M. Quine)? If not, where have you even heard/read about that paper?
Edit: (the answer to the response) thanks for answering with "I used first link with keywords similar to what I expected to find. I read linked articles and they are crap, so let dismiss this paper. Sorry." Regarding your question: "Can you accept, after confirming of gravitational waves, that there is field, called „gravitational field“, which affects speed of light, at least temporary?" the answer is: no, it seems you don't understand the basics of physics -- that is, the issues that were known before Einstein and the way he solved them, making the testable predictions. As the Michelson–Morley experiment was performed around 130 years ago, and confirmed many times since, it's really a lot that you miss, so I'm not going to continue the discussion.
I tried to Google article I want to show, but I'm not able to find it, so I used first link with keywords similar to what I expected to find. I read linked articles and they are crap, so let dismiss this paper. Sorry.
Article, I looking for, is about experiment conducted using Sagnac interferometer for more than year to detect deviations of predicted Sagnac effect, from Earth rotation, during year, from actual measurement. They tried to account everything they know and still had small anisotropic variations across year. I'm not able to find that article, so I will try to use LIGO observation of gravitational wave as argument.
Can you accept, after confirming of gravitational waves, that there is field, called „gravitational field“, which affects speed of light, at least temporary?
PS.
It's looks like we cannot continue discussion because of larger delays between posts, so just thanks you for your replies — they were helpful. I will try to prepare better for next time.
Thank you too for answering my questions. And to answer your last: You can imagine that what is measured with LIGO is the change of the space itself as the wave hits the detector. The speed of light remains constant. But please let's not discuss it more in this thread, I also prefer continuing somewhere else on some other occasion.
I found papers: they are calibration results of LIGO detectors. I read them years ago, so I forget anything except that they found systematic temporal variations across day and year, and they are using long 2km arms. Their latest paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1608.05134v1.pdf . Systematic error is still there.
Speed of light will remain constant, no doubt, so observer need to be far away to feel difference, otherwise it will be affected by wave, with his instruments and clock. It's why 2-4km arms are able to pickup temporal signal, while smaller setups are able to pickup thermal noise only.
PS.
Not sure that I will survive for so long, because of war with Russia — next week will be hard for me. :-)
It's a LIGO paper that you link now but it doesn't support any of your old claims, sorry. I still have an impression that you don't understand the physics, especially as you claimed before the "variable speed of light," it looks that you throw around something you remembered but never understood. So I'm more interested what's that "war with Russia"? Why next week? Is there a new conscription wave in Ukraine going on? I thought this was the latest state, only professionals:
English language is foreign for me and physics is my hobby, so you can safely assume that I'm noob in physics and use plain English and simple explanations. I need much more time to read in English that in my native language, especially in areas I'm not familiar with. I cannot just look at page and understand it, like in my native language.
Yep, it was not LIGO. LIGO uses Michelson inteferometer, while I'm looking for Sagnac interferometer results. As far as I remember, I started with that article: https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0401005v3.pdf , then started searching of articles about rotation sensing mentioned in the article. It looks like that it: http://porto.polito.it/2460498/1/G_GranSasso_18.pdf (or a newer paper).
I looked at FIG. 10: The rotation rate of the Earth measured with the G ring laser as a function of time. Averaging over 2 hours was applied to a corrected dataset, where all known geophysical signals have been removed
But their measurements were done with up to 1E-11 accuracy, which is just not enough, because (IMHO) signal will be 10-100x weaker than gravitational wave, so, IMHO, 1E-21 accuracy is required. So my comment, which started that discussion, is just wrong. :-(
About war: war is still here. We are switched to professional army (hence no new conscription) and situation is stable enough (1-7 killed, 3-15 injured every day). Crimea is still captured. Next week will be hard because I will have meeting with my killers. But, after 2 month of preparation, I forgot about one small but important detail, so I am basically unprepared now. Unfortunately, I cannot stop my play because I want to free Crimea next year, and lot of people are already involved, and contact with Russians is important in this case, so I will try to improvise, like before, when I was unprepared. I will delete that text tomorrow.
I cannot edit previous message, so let discuss a bit further. I'm sick, has high body temperature and unable sleep anyway.
To develop intuition, first you must understand that we are not moving through space, we are propagating through space, because we are waves. Actually, nothing is moved, hence no drag between material objects and space.
I will use video above as example. If you measure speed of sound in water between waves around droplets, you will found that speed of sound is constant, regardless of speed of droplet, because water is not moving at all. Water is contracting and expanding in place. We can perceive «lower» speed of sound in water in case of really big waves, because distance to travel will increase slightly. This is how gravitational waves are caught. Otherwise we are out of luck: we are counting waves to measure distance and time, and that count is not changing when space contracts and expands.
So the only two solutions I see to prove that space is real thing, like water, using waves only, is to:
1) cool vacuum below 0K — cooled vacuum will have slightly different speed of light (someone in USA is already working on that, shortly after discussion about „frozen vacuum“ at HN ;-). It's possible to cool or heat water using acoustic, but we are propagating through space, so cooled vacuum will be left in place while we will propagate away. Hard task. Can be done in interstellar space if ship will be able to stand at same place, or if large enough setup will be used quickly.
2) measure tiny asymmetry of front vs back of pilot wave using Sagnac effect to show that there are small deviations between predicted values and actual values, which are varying over year, as direction of movement and our position in Solar system changes (Solar system already had that asymmetry as measured by Voyagers). I saw (or I think that I saw) paper with exactly that information: experiment with large Sagnac interferometer conducted for over year with high precision which was focused on these deviations, but I still cannot find it. :-(
